Abortion revisited

Great Debates
41

Irrelevant. It would be better if chosen by a thirty year old married woman?

Sure. they could be the next Ghandi, or the next Hitler, the next Beethoven, or the next Bundy. It will probably be like the rest of us, neither adding nor detracting to mankind. So? All humans regardles of their “potential” have the right to live. The question is, when are you “human”, with the attending rights? At birth? Conception? X months? Or does a woman waste “potential” every month? Is every sperm sacred? Every one is a potential human life. I like the line when teh pregnancy is viable, myself.

You’ve already ceded that abortions are allowable in case of conception by rape (why? How is the child of a rapist any less human?). How should this be handled legally? Should an abortion be allowed after a complaint is filed? After the indictment? Conviction? Those can take an awfully long time, and many rape victims don’t report the crime. What happens if a woman accuses a man of rape, has an abortion, and the man then proves in court that the sex was wholly consensual. Is the woman charged with murder?

I don’t believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control either, but if you believe that abortion is permissable for any situation outside of medical necessity, then, for pragmatic and moral reasons, it must be legal for every situation, no matter how petty or irresponsible you may find them.

You want to reduce abortions? Great. Lobby to reform the adoption structure, support young, unwed, poor mothers through pregnancy and beyond, and for education on prophilatic birth control. Give women options outside of abortion.

42

from your OP…

It appears that those 2 statements are a bit in conflict. :wink:

If your purpose in this thread is to find out why pro choice folks on the boards feel the way they do, allow this pro life doper to help ya out.

Even more than pro life folks, pro choice folks are not nearly as homogeneous as you seem to think.

  • Some don’t believe that an embryo/zygote/fetus is alive. Really. (or they believe that it doesn’t become alive until the 2nd trimester or what have you).

  • Some believe that the z/e/f may be “alive”, but does not become “human” until some future developmental step… (like brain activity, sentience, viability…)

  • Some believe that it is alive and human, but not yet a “person” until some future developmental step.

  • Some even grant that it is a person…but a person without “rights” until some future developmental step.

  • Some could care less about the status of the z/e/f and feel that the mother always has the decision to do what she wants with it, up to an including cutting the cord. Some have self identified as supporting infanticide. These are often the pro choice folks who like to use terms like “parasite” to describe the z/e/f.

I think I’ve covered most of the pro choice viewpoints I’ve seen on the boards.

If your purpose in this thread is to debate the above viewpoints, or to sway opinion, your “you are all pathetic” comment doesn’t help your point of view or the pro life position at all. Please refrain from that kind of comment.

43

Well, you did (in so many words) as the originator of this debate, you specifically stated that this was not a religious or ehtical debate, but a scientific one

**That’s what I (and others) have tried to say, so you do agree?

**Hmmm, but you said we were going to deal with scientific and logical arguments.

[quote**P.S. What “facts” are you looking for? Apparantly, my stats (which are true) do not constitute as facts. What, for example, would be a fact that I could use to further my opinion? All I have are stats and observable phenomena, so what else do I need? **[/QUOTE]
you have to be able to show us why, based on the facts and statistics given, it is logical and scientific to consider a freshly fertilised ovum to be a human being with full rights (if indeed that is your position; please forgive me if I’ve mis-stated it). Otherwise this is a debate about ethics and religion (which is also fine, but in that case let’s not pretend it’s science)

44

Point taken. But, I always thought it was (or should be) straightforward: if science defines you as human, you have human rights. I always wanted to avoid the situation where you have a class of humans without human rights. That seemed to be a slippery slope to, figuratively speaking, a hell on earth; then again, I take my human rights pretty seriously.

I hate to speak for GDG, so I’ll speak only for myself. Here is what I was hoping to see in this thread in response to his OP: a reasoned discussion by pro-choicers regarding the aforementioned ideas, perhaps even a laundry list of those ideas with reasons why those ideas are objectively principled points (as best they can be) at which to define the beginning of a human.

This was directed at GDG, but allow me to respond to further the discussion: Yes, generally, I always thought those were deaths. In my more militant atheistic days (but still pro-life), I used to say things like “God can’t be pro-life; God runs the biggest abortion clinic in the world.”

45

Just a minor point; I reject both ‘pro-lifer’ or a ‘pro-choicer’ labels and I can’t even claim to occupy the middle ground; it’s complicated and I won’t bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that I’m trying to approach this debate with only logic as a tool; if you were to ask me about ethics and religion, chances are you’d think I was on the alternate side.

‘Human’ isn’t a definition provided by cold logical science, it’s dictated by law, ethics and ideas. Even the idea about humanity being achieved on combination of genetic material must be prefixed with the words I think or I believe.

46

First things first.
I apologize to anyone who has taken offense to my posts and I will refrain from being so gregarious.

Secondly, in the instance of rape, (many will call me a hypocrite and I admit it) the mother may find revulsion to the child to be, and even thoug hI would still rather see it born, I do not think it should be made illegal despite my beliefs.

Third, a fertilized ovum constitutes life to me because that one cell may not have the vestiges and sophistication of a ready-to-be-born baby, but it still will nevertheless. For me it is impossible to imagine that only after a human is fully developed it can be considered human (as I said before, even born babies develop some more after birth)

Fourth, forgive the confusion I have created with science and ethics. It seems to argue my points I will need to use both so I will not strictly use science or ethics for my basis. I want to understand why nine months before it is considered life, a zygote is not considered to be, “human enough” to spare. I understand that many peopel feel even though a developing baby is life, it is still not the same as a human. I say that it is.

Why?

Because none of us are ever truly human if we do not consider zygotes to be human. As a child, my testicles did not produce as much testosterone in my body, I could not reproduce, my body muscles had not developed completely. As an adolescent, my body’s various organs kickied in causing me to achieve manhood. As a man, my body slowly degenerates until the inevitability that I will die. At each of these stages, I was considered human. What did my body/mind have in common during all of these stages? My genetic makeup. My brain function, muscles, liver, stomach, etc. all changed over my life but I was still human.
Back to the zygote. It is my belief that since there is no question that a child and an adult are both considered human, a zygote must be as well. What defines a human? Is it our brain? Our limbs? Our (other) organs? No. What defines a human from any other animal is our genetic makeup. At conception, we have the same genetic makeup as we do as adults. The only difference is that the cells then were what are called, “unspecialized” which means that they have no definitive role in the body (e.g. a brain cell is completely different than a blood cell only after they specialize)

Since our genetic makeup (our 46 or so chromosomes) are what we use to distinct ourselves from chimps or dogs, that gentic makeup must be what we use to constitute a human. Since a zygote has the full potential to develop itself into specialized tissue and ultimately a baby, it too must be considered human.

If I was unclear on my logic, please ask for clarification.
NAd one again, I apologize for my rudeness and I will refrain from being rude from here on.

GDG

47

The answer is obvious, and you gave the right answer, but I disagree with your reason. Life is “sacred,” but not necessarily in the “religious, God said so” sort of way, but at least in the “not just important, but really, really, really important, and more important than most things” sort of way.

And I agree with self-defense, by the way. I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to terminate an intruder in my house threatening my family. In my view, the intruder chose to forfeit his human right to life as long as he was threatening another’s right to life.

In any event, this analogy fails. The fetus didn’t show up at one’s doorstep, through no act of the homeowner. The fetus is not an intruder bent on destroying the homeowner. I suspect you disagree here, and I am receptive to hearing your point of view.

Life is more important than stability, discomfort and risk of furture harm. I’m surprised I have to say that. I will grant that this is an inconvenient position to hold at times, but I see no other alternative.

Generally, the tort/harm should lie with its victim, unless there is a more responsible party to which to transfer the harm. Life, while perhaps sacred, does not appear to be fair. However, having said that, I do feel morally obligated (not civilly so) to aid those who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy.

Perhaps in the rape situation you mentioned, the government can, in its role of protecting life, step in with health and financial aid for the next 18 years and nine months, and seek reimbursement from the rapist.

48

No one. Innocent life is more important than hardship, always and everywhere.

Is this really the pro-choice position? I always thought pro-choicers valued life as well, but merely defined it differently. Do pro-choicers really think it is ok to kill in the name of convenience? Surely your opinion is unique in this respect.

I don’t measure human life in terms of dollars, and if that is the case, then so be it.

49

Well done godogsgo13 (seriously).

Yes, if you insist that there is a discrete point at which ‘human’ clicks into place then you must choose something like conception, implantation or birth as your point (more or less everything else happens quite gradually and would not provide a distinct and discrete cutoff point).

But that only holds true if you believe that there is such a point and (as you’ll see in the thread I started a while back on this topic:(When does a human life actually start?) it’s hard to come to any such conclusion by rational means).

50

In any case, it seems like the pro-choice argument is not necessarily that there isn’t a human life being ended, but that there is a need that outweighs another (like in your example of a woman being raped and being allowed an abortion, only that the boundaries are drawn differently)

51

godogsgo said:
“These unborn children have as much a right to live as you or I”

U.S. legal precedent does not back you up on this. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment, and other appellate cases have upheld that the final ultimate say in a pregnancy rests with the mother, and not the fetus or the father.

52

First. I agree with Il Topo (shocking as it may be)
Life is more important than any and all hardships that we face is securing it.

Secondly, Mangetout, I feel conception is the point that life begins because it is the point before every other point (e.g. implantation, birth etc.) so it must be the point to be used. Before fertilization, no creature that has the genetic makeup of a human exists. Also, the issue of rape is touchy all the way around but even though I don’t think it should be madde illegal, I would still strongly urge raped mothers to give birth.

Basically, if you have sex, you must face reality that you may get pregnant. Abortion should not be the, “way out” of being pregnant. I say if you do the deed, you have to expect to pay the price. In rape, the woman is not consenting, which clouds the issue somewhat. But simply but, any child concieved has a right to be born because conception is when life begins. (in my book)

GDG

53

Great, Godogsgo pisses everyone off and then decides to agree with me! Stop, dogs, stop, the light is red!!! :slight_smile:

54

That’s only what the law says. Are you seriously suggesting that the law is always right? That the law is the ultimate foundation for what’s right and wrong?

If you do, then I have a few more questions for you, and I hope that you’ll answer carefully.

55

You missed one.

  • Some belive that it is alive and human with limited rights. However those limited rights can be outweighted by the woman’s rights in certain circumstances.
56

Well, no. At the time the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), a solid majority of Americans was against abortion on demand.

And it so remains today. A recent (Jan. 22, 2001) ABC News/Washington Post poll found, “Twenty-eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court made abortion legal, although some Americans support abortion in very rare circumstances, most Americans oppose the overwhelming number of abortions.”

“… [A] majority opposes legal abortion if it’s performed solely to end an
unwanted pregnancy, which constitutes most abortions.”

57

Oh, bull. Are you starting a letter writing campaign to get the national speed limit down to 25 MPH? Think of all the lives you would save! What about outlawing all desserts, fast food and other unhealthy foods? Thank of all the lives you would save! What about forcing people to exercise for an hour a day? What’s your position on the number of Afghan civilians killed by US forces – should more US troops have been put in danger to prevent Afghan civilian casaulties? What’s your position on the death penalty? On dropping the bomb on Japan in WWII?

No, I’ve got to call bull on you. You just think life is more important than any and all hardships. Its not. Sorry I have to break it to you, but humans engage in dangerous activities all the time that put both themselves and innocent people at risk.

There it is. The truth. You want to punish women for having <gasp> sex. You think a woman looses her rights because she has had <gasp> sex. Yep, woman should not be having <gasp> sex, and those whores should be punished. You don’t care what the circumstances were (except maybe rape – and even then, was she wearing something provocative? hmmm) she loses her right to control her own body.

And lets be clear, she originally had that right (because raped women retain that right) but it is lost when she becomes a slut.

No, I’m not a misogynist, so I can’t share you position.

58

The classical quasi-puritan “responsibility” argument. I am reminded of a paper by Thomson (I think) that I read a couple of years ago.

[sorta paraphrasing]
Suppose a woman lives in a house. The house is stuffy This woman decides to open a window. A while later, a burglar climbs in through the window. He sets about taking her things, eating her food-- just generally being an unwanted guest. The woman calls the police. Someone on the other end of the line says, “Look lady, you knew there were such things as burglars. You knew that burglars climb in through open windows. Its your own fault. You can’t ask him to leave now and you certainly aren’t allowed to harm him if he isn’t hurting you. If you don’t want burglars in your house, you should never open the window.”

Now let us assume that the woman places bars over the window to prevent subsequent burglars-- she really likes fresh air. She opens the window and goes about her business. A while later, a burglar manages to slip through the bars and enters the house. He isn’t supposed to be there. She doesn’t want him there. He’s there anyway. Does he have the right to stay? Should she be allowed to have him forcibly removed? Should she be able to kill him if her life were in danger? Should she be able to do whatever is necessary to maintain control of her house as she sees fit?
[/sorta paraphrasing]

Myself, I enjoy fresh air.

59

gdg13, you agree that rape victims should have access to abortion (and I wouldn’t exactly call you hypocritical, very few moral models are utterly and perfectly consistent), but as a practical matter, how would you suggest this be handled?

In a hypothetical world where abortion is only legal (and I am assuming you are arguing that abortion should be illegal in all but certain situations, am I wrong?) in cases of medical necessity, then the procedure could be prescribed by doctors, the same way they can give out other controlled substances. But what about where it is legal in case of rape? In many cases, it is not obvious that rape occurred. Who gets to say when an abortion is warranted? If the woman, then how do you stop this new incentive from falsely reporting rapes (as some desperate women surely would)? If some outside official, be it a judge or a jury, how do you insure they reach an unprejudiced finding before it’s too late to safetly abort? Would a conviction be necessary? It’s easier on rape victims, I say, to let them always have access to abortions, no questions asked.

You and I actually agree, gdg. I too think that abortions are distasteful (even in case of rape, for me, although I’d never begrudge a woman who has one for that reason, rather I’d say a woman who bears a child of rape is a living saint). I also think that drinking too much is distasteful, or being a member of the KKK. I would never make this things illegal, it’s a violation of human rights to do so. The only difference between us, is that I will not agree that the rights given to humanity are attatched at conception, or early pregnancy, and thus the woman (who does have real rights) has every right to do what i consider a very bad thing and end her pregnancy.

60

First, the definition of “human” must be explored. Let it be assumed that humans are different than animals. We are different than animals due to sentience. All animals have a genetic makeup and the fact that ours is different is not really what separates us from all other animals. No, it is the byproduct, the sentient being, that separates us. After all, if different genetics separates one from all other animals, isn’t every species of animal “human?” So, it can be established that sentience, not different genetics, is what separates humans from animals. This being the case, degrees of humanity directly reflect degrees of sentience. The less sentient the less human and vice versa. This being the case, a zyogte is not human because it is not sentient. Only when some level of sentience is achieved is humanity achieved.
If humans are not considered different than animals, then anything fitting the physical characteristics of the species is human.
Using either of these definitions, the zygote is not human.
It must also be noted that if genetic patterns are human, than every sperm or egg that is allowed to die is like killing exactly half of a human. So…arguably, every two times a woman allows an egg to exit her, she has allowed a whole human to die.
However, what we really face with abortion is a conflict between two entities. It cannot be said that pregnancy does not result in less than minor discomfort for the woman. Why should she be forced to go through pregnancy with an unwanted child? It might be said that killing the unborn entity is so terrible that the woman should not even have a choice in the matter. This assumes that the ethical value of the unborn one’s life overrides the right of the woman to have some control over her body and choice in regard to the discomfort she must be put through. However, this makes little sense because, by either of the above definitions of human, the mother is more human than the unborn one. It is not the same as taking the life of a full-fledged human, the life is, therefore, less valuable. This being the case, the woman’s rights override those of the lesser human (if it can even be classified as that) inside her. Now, this argument could be extended to relationships between people on different developmental stages. However, the death is only warranted if there is no alternative method with which to deal with the problem. Unless pregnancy can be made completely bearable, this argument will still apply.